The era of musical women that I study hasn't gotten nearly the scholarly attention it deserves. In passing articles, chapters, and short books have not done this material justice, in my opinion. Most scholars look to this era as a fun topic to write some short article-- "look at this phenomenon. how neat. moving back to more 'high' 'scholastic' 'deep' musicological topics."
I vow to bring the scholarship to a new level. I vow to create a tome that can help us better understand gender relationships, depictions, and roles in this era (from perhaps as wide a range as 1840-1940).
I'm tired of finding promising titles and abstracts and then being disappointed by the writing. I'm tired of reading either incredibly philosophical works or incredibly banal texts. I want to write something that is accessible and understandable while applying recent feminine* scholarship (*not necessarily feminist). I want something that will cause people to be inspired- to have "light bulb, aha" moments.
And I will do whatever it takes to get there. To get a book published about this material.
If that means foregoing my Native American studies for a while, making this the focus of my dissertation, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I am inspired by and fascinated with this era (especially from around 1880-1930). I am so proud of my master's thesis, and though I'm letting my Etude research "rest" a little bit, I'm dying to dive into this broader topic more. Of Jenny Lind and Cecile Chaminade, Etude's and other musical magazines, the 1893 expo, James Huneker, Charles Dana Gibson, and all the other complicated gender issues that arose in the new industrialized America.
Dear Elissa: I promise one day I will find a way to do justice for these amazing women who are often understood, misrepresented, and forgotten. I promise to read voraciously and become as much of an expert as I possibly can.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
a word on the glee "hype"
I've heard nothing but crying about the latest Glee landmark. Surpassing the Beatles. How dare those kids. All they sing is COVERS. Good heavens. For shame.
First, let me direct you to this NPR article which I think helps put things a little in perspective.
Second, let me remind all the music history fans of a couple of things. Let's put things in perspective.
1) What harm is there in setting records? Billboard has tons of charts, tons of statistics. IT'S ONLY A NUMBER PEOPLE. Plus, if you look at the details, it took Glee a little over a year to get that record. (Proof there is a great surge of popularity). But let's see if it can last another 30 years like The Beatles did. And let's see if Glee can get as high consistently as The Beatles did. (Most of Glee's hits chart in the 50s-90s, whereas The Beatles were mostly in the top half of the chart). And let's see if Glee can stay on the charts for more than a week at a time (which was a given for Beatles' songs).
[Also, when did it become a crime for the music industry to move forward? Everyone knows how HUGE a Beatles fan I am. But why is it such a bad thing that 40ish years later, someone else took over. That someone else found immense success. It doesn't lessen the impact and the greatness of The Beatles.]
2) We live in a different day and age than The Beatles. One reason for Glee's immense popularity? The immediacy of itunes. You like the song tonight, you can buy it right then. You don't have to wait to go to the record store, possibly forgetting or talking yourself out of getting it. It's pocket change- downloading one $1.29 song. It's a digital file- no space constraints like a record collection. And each week- another 5-10 songs are released- starting the cycle all over again. This process is very different from the time constraints of producing new albums and singles. And all of this is only exponentially raised when you think about the synchronicity for all media outlets- television, internet, music, film-- word gets out fast that Don't Stop Believin' was awesome last night- more people download it the next day.
What I'm getting at is not to belittle Glee's accomplishments, but to ask people to think of the differences in music promulgation from when The Beatles were charting.
3) Yes, I do believe that some of the supporting cast is auto-tuned on their songs. And I'm sure they have other singers do the backing vocals (seriously, there's not enough hours in the day for those kids to rehearse dances, film the show, and record every single vocal track, along with all the extra press events they do). But this whole debate gets us into authenticity in music, and that I shall leave for another post.
4) As stated in the NPR article, Glee is helping to reinvent the Great American Song book. It's not just about Sinatra and Gershwin anymore. This is my generation's music. Why did the Britney episode go over so well? Because the largest demographic of Glee watchers grew up with Ms Spears. 100 years from now, Glee will be looked back as a snapshot of musical tastes of this era. It tells us musical priorities, like a broadside ballad or psalmbook from the 17th century. Why does it matter that these songs are, GASP, covers? Yes, I love it when they rework the tunes, but isn't imitation the most sincere form of flattery? It just reinforces the greatness of these songs. And the ability for songs to take on new meanings under various contexts. Things we, as music historians, study everyday with songs from 200 years ago. (Case in point: Kurt singing The Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in the wake of his father's massive heart attack.[I'm sure the video will be taken down soon, but a fan video with audio].)
Look: I do not deny that I am biased. I enjoy the show if for no other reason than a titular message: it's gleeful. It makes me laugh, and I often want to get up off the couch and dance and sing with my puppy. Why is that so wrong? It's escapist television. It's the closest thing I can find to a variety show (song, dance, comedy, etc) that doesn't make me want to hurl something at the television.
And if you need another reason for Glee not being the spawn of Satan, the downfall of the music industry as we know it, just listen to this voice. This girl needed greater publicity (fast-foward to :30ish seconds in the video). She is the greatest voice of our generation.
Bottom line: this milestone does not make The Beatles a lesser band. It does not even really make Glee a greater phenomenon. It's just a number that proves the changes itunes, the internet, and digital media has brought to the music industry. It is just another artifact, a piece of musical history in the making.
First, let me direct you to this NPR article which I think helps put things a little in perspective.
Second, let me remind all the music history fans of a couple of things. Let's put things in perspective.
1) What harm is there in setting records? Billboard has tons of charts, tons of statistics. IT'S ONLY A NUMBER PEOPLE. Plus, if you look at the details, it took Glee a little over a year to get that record. (Proof there is a great surge of popularity). But let's see if it can last another 30 years like The Beatles did. And let's see if Glee can get as high consistently as The Beatles did. (Most of Glee's hits chart in the 50s-90s, whereas The Beatles were mostly in the top half of the chart). And let's see if Glee can stay on the charts for more than a week at a time (which was a given for Beatles' songs).
[Also, when did it become a crime for the music industry to move forward? Everyone knows how HUGE a Beatles fan I am. But why is it such a bad thing that 40ish years later, someone else took over. That someone else found immense success. It doesn't lessen the impact and the greatness of The Beatles.]
2) We live in a different day and age than The Beatles. One reason for Glee's immense popularity? The immediacy of itunes. You like the song tonight, you can buy it right then. You don't have to wait to go to the record store, possibly forgetting or talking yourself out of getting it. It's pocket change- downloading one $1.29 song. It's a digital file- no space constraints like a record collection. And each week- another 5-10 songs are released- starting the cycle all over again. This process is very different from the time constraints of producing new albums and singles. And all of this is only exponentially raised when you think about the synchronicity for all media outlets- television, internet, music, film-- word gets out fast that Don't Stop Believin' was awesome last night- more people download it the next day.
What I'm getting at is not to belittle Glee's accomplishments, but to ask people to think of the differences in music promulgation from when The Beatles were charting.
3) Yes, I do believe that some of the supporting cast is auto-tuned on their songs. And I'm sure they have other singers do the backing vocals (seriously, there's not enough hours in the day for those kids to rehearse dances, film the show, and record every single vocal track, along with all the extra press events they do). But this whole debate gets us into authenticity in music, and that I shall leave for another post.
4) As stated in the NPR article, Glee is helping to reinvent the Great American Song book. It's not just about Sinatra and Gershwin anymore. This is my generation's music. Why did the Britney episode go over so well? Because the largest demographic of Glee watchers grew up with Ms Spears. 100 years from now, Glee will be looked back as a snapshot of musical tastes of this era. It tells us musical priorities, like a broadside ballad or psalmbook from the 17th century. Why does it matter that these songs are, GASP, covers? Yes, I love it when they rework the tunes, but isn't imitation the most sincere form of flattery? It just reinforces the greatness of these songs. And the ability for songs to take on new meanings under various contexts. Things we, as music historians, study everyday with songs from 200 years ago. (Case in point: Kurt singing The Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in the wake of his father's massive heart attack.[I'm sure the video will be taken down soon, but a fan video with audio].)
Look: I do not deny that I am biased. I enjoy the show if for no other reason than a titular message: it's gleeful. It makes me laugh, and I often want to get up off the couch and dance and sing with my puppy. Why is that so wrong? It's escapist television. It's the closest thing I can find to a variety show (song, dance, comedy, etc) that doesn't make me want to hurl something at the television.
And if you need another reason for Glee not being the spawn of Satan, the downfall of the music industry as we know it, just listen to this voice. This girl needed greater publicity (fast-foward to :30ish seconds in the video). She is the greatest voice of our generation.
Bottom line: this milestone does not make The Beatles a lesser band. It does not even really make Glee a greater phenomenon. It's just a number that proves the changes itunes, the internet, and digital media has brought to the music industry. It is just another artifact, a piece of musical history in the making.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Writing Tips- Thesis/Dissertation
I am by no means an expert on writing large scale documents. Writing one thesis doth not make one an extraordinary writing guru. But I have picked up a couple of tips and general suggestions from my amazing mentors over the past three years, and now if I see such glaring issues, it bothers me greatly. These aren't necessarily easy fixes, but I think they help one's work so much if done properly.
First, don't quote textbooks. Or general history books (especially "concise history" texts). If it's "a social history of...", that might be acceptable, as it has a focus. But if you are trying to sound like an expert on a subject, there is no need to quote someone who is simply summarizing an entire phenomenon. These people might be making huge generalizations, thereby making you look less credible when your discussion is not nuanced as it should be. It's only okay when you are trying to point out the writer's opinion as part of your argument.
Secondly, integrated quotes. Make them your friend. Three block quotes on one page (taking up more room than your commentary) is ridiculous. If it's a primary source and you like it that much, create an appendix with the entire text transcribed. Seriously. It's very likely that I will not read the block quote simply because I want to hear your argument- not someone else's.
I know we all end up counting pages to measure worth. I know its not healthy as the best writing is, more often than not, concise. But please consider throwing out sections that are unnecessary to your argument. I don't need a complete history of music in x era when you are talking about a specific phenomenon. Take out background that you know your audience will be aware of. I think when writing a scholarly tome, one can assume that the reader has a bit of base knowledge on the subject. Our writing is not "pop" writing that appears on bestseller lists. Our readers are genuinely interested in this material. So if you feel compelled, footnote and direct them to other works that have already covered such topics.
And lastly, titles are important. Titles need to represent exactly what the chapter/section is arguing. Titles can change as you are formulating your writing. It's the first and last thing you should consider. Also, if you use an odd phrase or foreign term, explain it. Don't throw out terminology and then never mention it in your text. I base whether or not I read a chapter on the title (I think that's a given for most of us), and if the title doesn't represent the chapter, it is a huge waste of time.
Honestly, through the years I have been collecting thesis/dissertations. Many of the subjects I study have only been covered in an obscure thesis, and so I have quite a number of student research works. I think these tomes are amazing snapshots of budding scholarship. And sometimes, I get frustrated at glaring things that could have been fixed. Now coming out of the aftermath of writing such a document, I realize the stressors, time constraints, and pains it took to just get the blasted thing done. So I can't be too critical. But perhaps these ideas can help future scholars when tackling this dreaded scholarly landmark.
Are there others that people can think of that should be added here?
First, don't quote textbooks. Or general history books (especially "concise history" texts). If it's "a social history of...", that might be acceptable, as it has a focus. But if you are trying to sound like an expert on a subject, there is no need to quote someone who is simply summarizing an entire phenomenon. These people might be making huge generalizations, thereby making you look less credible when your discussion is not nuanced as it should be. It's only okay when you are trying to point out the writer's opinion as part of your argument.
Secondly, integrated quotes. Make them your friend. Three block quotes on one page (taking up more room than your commentary) is ridiculous. If it's a primary source and you like it that much, create an appendix with the entire text transcribed. Seriously. It's very likely that I will not read the block quote simply because I want to hear your argument- not someone else's.
I know we all end up counting pages to measure worth. I know its not healthy as the best writing is, more often than not, concise. But please consider throwing out sections that are unnecessary to your argument. I don't need a complete history of music in x era when you are talking about a specific phenomenon. Take out background that you know your audience will be aware of. I think when writing a scholarly tome, one can assume that the reader has a bit of base knowledge on the subject. Our writing is not "pop" writing that appears on bestseller lists. Our readers are genuinely interested in this material. So if you feel compelled, footnote and direct them to other works that have already covered such topics.
And lastly, titles are important. Titles need to represent exactly what the chapter/section is arguing. Titles can change as you are formulating your writing. It's the first and last thing you should consider. Also, if you use an odd phrase or foreign term, explain it. Don't throw out terminology and then never mention it in your text. I base whether or not I read a chapter on the title (I think that's a given for most of us), and if the title doesn't represent the chapter, it is a huge waste of time.
Honestly, through the years I have been collecting thesis/dissertations. Many of the subjects I study have only been covered in an obscure thesis, and so I have quite a number of student research works. I think these tomes are amazing snapshots of budding scholarship. And sometimes, I get frustrated at glaring things that could have been fixed. Now coming out of the aftermath of writing such a document, I realize the stressors, time constraints, and pains it took to just get the blasted thing done. So I can't be too critical. But perhaps these ideas can help future scholars when tackling this dreaded scholarly landmark.
Are there others that people can think of that should be added here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)